Propose DAO parameter default values about proposals HOT 10 CLOSED

I would say lets close that if noboday has further concerns.

from proposals.

Regarding the trade fees:

We keep the current fee if the user prefers to use BTC for the fee payment.
If the user opt in to BSQ fee payment he will pay 10% of the BTC fee with the assumption that 1 BSQ = 1 USD and 1 BTC = 10 000 USD. It could be expressed in BSQ to BTC relation as well but I think that is harder to get a guts feeling for.
It can be assumed (hoped) that the real BSQ market rate will be higher which will make that difference between BSQ and BTC fee smaller. This is intended as we want to fade out or at least reduce the BSQ discount over time. It will likely be required that we adjust the BSQ fee and probably the BTC fee as well. Increasing the BTC fee over time is an option as well to get again a better discount. Mid term target is that > 75% of our traders use BSQ and the actual revenue from fees is similar to todays fee (0.2%).

But of course the fee policy will be then in the hand of the BSQ stakeholders.

from proposals.

@Cypherspace86 will work on the verification task (bisq-network/bisq#1769).

from proposals.

Some of those comments in the above code snippet need to be updated based on recent changes to amounts and data types.
Also, the min/max increase values may need to be adjusted. They seem high for most parameters.
Otherwise, the values look good to me.

from proposals.

Also, the min/max increase values may need to be adjusted. They seem high for most parameters.

@devinbileck I don't see them in this list?

Agree to update the comments. I also think it would be good to display in the UI values that are based on 1 BTC trade volume in percent to make it easier to understand.

from proposals.

I think the parameters look good.

@devinbileck I think it's good to have some leeway to change the parameters in the beginning, we might be totally off with some of them and need to change them significantly. The risk of allowing too much of a change doesn't seem big to me as there is still voting with a high threshold to change anything.

from proposals.

I don't see them in this list?

@ripcurlx They are the 3rd and 4th arguments for each of the parameters in the code snippet above (not in the code snippet of the original comment to this issue).

I think it's good to have some leeway to change the parameters in the beginning, we might be totally off with some of them and need to change them significantly. The risk of allowing too much of a change doesn't seem big to me as there is still voting with a high threshold to change anything.

@sqrrm Good point.

from proposals.

I updated the list above and removed the second entry with the updated list....
Fixed the comments in the fee section.

from proposals.

The values look also ok I think.
Anyway, if I understand well, if there is need to adapt, those values can be changed by a vote from the contributors (?)

from proposals.

The values look also ok I think.
Anyway, if I understand well, if there is need to adapt, those values can be changed by a vote from the contributors (?)

Yes.

from proposals.